 |
|
|
|
|
October 16th, 2013
03:20 PM ET
What Oprah gets wrong about atheism
(CNN) - To some, Oprah Winfrey appears to have an almost godlike status. Her talents are well recognized, and her endorsement can turn almost any product into an overnight bestseller. This godlike perception is fitting, since in recent years Winfrey’s work has increasingly emphasized spirituality, including programs like her own "Super Soul Sunday." But what happens when an atheist enters the mix? A few days ago Winfrey interviewed long-distance swimmer Diana Nyad on Super Soul Sunday. Nyad identified herself as an atheist who experiences awe and wonder at the natural world and humanity. Nyad, 64, who swam from Cuba to Key West last month, said “I can stand at the beach’s edge with the most devout Christian, Jew, Buddhist, go on down the line, and weep with the beauty of this universe and be moved by all of humanity — all the billions of people who have lived before us, who have loved and hurt.” Winfrey responded, “Well I don’t call you an atheist then.” Winfrey went on, “I think if you believe in the awe and the wonder and the mystery then that is what God is… It’s not a bearded guy in the sky.” Nyad clarified that she doesn’t use the word God because it implies a “presence… a creator or an overseer.” Winfrey’s response may have been well intended, but it erased Nyad’s atheist identity and suggested something entirely untrue and, to many atheists like me, offensive: that atheists don’t experience awe and wonder. MORE ON CNN: Diana Nyad completes historic Cuba-to-Florida swim The exchange between Winfrey and Nyad reminds me of a conversation I once had with a Catholic scholar. The professor once asked me: “When I talk about God, I mean love and justice and reconciliation, not a man in the sky. You talk about love and justice and reconciliation. Why can’t you just call that God?” I replied: “Why must you call that God? Why not just call it what it is: love and justice and reconciliation?” Though we started off with this disagreement, we came to better understand one another’s points of view through patient, honest dialogue. Conversations like that are greatly needed today, as atheists are broadly misunderstood. MORE ON CNN: Behold, the six types of atheists When I visit college and university campuses around the United States, I frequently ask students what words are commonly associated with atheists. Their responses nearly always include words like “negative,” “selfish,” “nihilistic” and “closed-minded.” When I ask how many of them actually have a relationship with an atheist, few raise their hands. Relationships can be transformative. The Pew Research Center found that among the 14% of Americans who changed their mind from opposing same-sex marriage to supporting it in the last decade, the top reason given was having “friends, family, acquaintances who are gay/lesbian.” Knowing someone of a different identity can increase understanding. This has been true for me as a queer person and as an atheist. I have met people who initially think I can’t actually be an atheist when they learn that I experience awe and am committed to service and social justice. But when I explain that atheism is central to my worldview — that I am in awe of the natural world and that I believe it is up to human beings, instead of a divine force, to strive to address our problems — they often better understand my views, even if we don’t agree. While theists can learn by listening to atheists more, atheists themselves can foster greater understanding by not just emphasizing the “no” of atheism — our disagreement over the existence of any gods — but also the “yes” of atheism and secular humanism, which recognizes the amazing potential within human beings. Carl Sagan, the agnostic astronomer and author, would have agreed with Nyad’s claim that you can be an atheist, agnostic or nonreligious person and consider yourself “spiritual.” As Sagan wrote in "The Demon-Haunted World,": "When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual.” Nyad told Winfrey that she feels a similar sense of awe: “I think you can be an atheist who doesn’t believe in an overarching being who created all of this and sees over it,” she said. “But there’s spirituality because we human beings, and we animals, and maybe even we plants, but certainly the ocean and the moon and the stars, we all live with something that is cherished and we feel the treasure of it.” MORE ON CNN: 'Atheist' isn’t a dirty word, congresswoman I experience that same awe when I see people of different beliefs coming together across lines of religious difference to recognize that we are all human — that we all love and hurt. Perhaps Winfrey, who could use her influence to shatter stereotypes about atheists rather than reinforce them, would have benefited from listening to Nyad just a bit more closely and from talking to more atheists about awe and wonder. I know many who would be up to the task. Chris Stedman is the assistant humanist chaplain at Harvard University, coordinator of humanist life for the Yale Humanist Community and author of Faitheist: How an Atheist Found Common Ground with the Religious. soundoff (4,964 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next »
Next entry »Stephen Colbert roasts the Pope
« Previous entryIn Syria, Muslims struggle to celebrate holy day
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Atheism is a way of saying you're closed-minded and unwilling to allow your soul to speak the truths of the universe.
And accepting, without evidence dogmatic, rote answers to the great questions of life, the universe and everything is open-minded?
Exactly Doc. Open minded is considering all possibilities, closed minded is not even considering possibilities that don't agree with a certain myth (out of fear of burning in hell for eternity?).
I'm open-minded to the possibility of there being gods somewhere in the universe. I'm just not convinced by any of the claims of gods here on Earth. Since I don't see any real gods to believe in, I'm an atheist.
How about you, honey? Are you open-minded enough to consider that there might not be any gods anywhere?
Topher is the best advocate for atheism on the blog. We need T. He turns Christians into atheists daily.
That may be true, but he's annoying. Trolls are non-productive.
AthiestSteve–I realize you are just throwing a punch and there is not room for lengthy discourse, but there's not "just two interpretations" as you present it. God is love, but love does involve discipline (think children,boundaries, etc.) Christians do acknowleged that God does have emotions. But He is not led by them; He does not always act on them or if He does act on them it may be thousands of years before he does. Yes, the Bible does talk about God acting in being jealous and acting in wrath. But first of all, as an atheist, you have probably said the Bible is just a book of myths and lies and fairytales in the first place, so why are you basing your arguement on it? Secondly, if you are going to base your arguement on it, God only acted that way after hundreds of years of the Isrealites engaging in Baal worship that involved the blood sacrifices and canabalism of their children (and lots of other unmentionable perverted stuff). Don't ya think a just God should have put His foot down in that???
I think your assertion here is that an all-powerful God cannot be all-powerful if He has emotions. That's a limited view of perfection if it must be cold and flat and unfeeling.
We are responsible for our actions. And our emotions. Because emotions are a product of our thoughts and we are responsible for our thoughts. And we do have godlike characteristics. But having godlike characteristics does not MAKE us Gods. God said, Let us make man in Our image.... God is not limited to your description. God is not limited to any human words or description. From the universe to crocodiles and puppies and everything in between. He is not "the old man in the sky" He is light and fire and power and everything within. But God is a gentleman. He will not force Himself on you. You do not have to believe. When Adam sinned and fell, Satan said, "I demand that they die!" Out of Love and forgiveness, God said, "I demand that they be given a choice."
If you don't believe God exists, why even argue about characteristics He may or may not have?
That was my point in my initial post: no one is going to change any one's mind's or beliefs. We say we are trying to have a "discussion" but it's all arguing and criticising and telling each side how wrong everybody else is. Oprah doesn't care and the demons laugh on....
Personally, I think the issue is that God is described as having anger,jealousy, wrath, and all of these qualiies are clearly described as sins in the bible, yet god is described as "perfect" and without sin.
Which is it? It can't be both. Contradictory, like so much else in the bible.
The emotions themselves are not sins. It's the harmful actions that usually follow...."Be angry and sin not..." etc. Mea culpa. It's hard indeed not to drawn into this...If you have not really read the Bible for yourself or made an effort to study or sort out the things you find contradictory, if you've just dismissed it as false and pointless, then nothing I say will make any difference. But if you are open, you will find that when it comes to the Bible, when something appears to be contradictory, it's really not. It just means that you have run into something you don't understand yet or you haven't been shown the full picture.
Actions that follow? Such as destroying entire civilizations?
I appreciate your desire to "share" the bible with me, I do, however I, like many atheists, am one BECAUSE I've read it, not because I haven't. Born and raised a Southern Baptist, spent many years as a "born again" christian in a non denominational church, finally had to admit to myself that I could not continue because I simply could not believe a word of it. Was afraid for a long time I was going to Hell because I secretly did not believe, eventually admitted I was completely unable to force myself to do so.
And please don't tell me I was "doing it wrong", because I wasn't. (not that you've said any such thing so far, but it's a common statement I've heard from many christians so I'm heading it off at the pass) 🙂 (you didn't open your heart enough, you weren't truly contrite, you didn't turn away from your sin, etc.)
By actions that follow, I meant human acts. And I wouldn't tell you you did it wrong. And I don't necessarily want to share the Bible with you. But sometimes people just dismiss it as being contradictory and they haven't even read it. It's just hard to tell where people are when they make comments. Are they trying to have a legitimate sincere discussion, are are they just being mean and hateful?
Well said.
' Yes, the Bible does talk about God acting in being jealous and acting in wrath. But first of all, as an atheist, you have probably said the Bible is just a book of myths and lies and fairytales in the first place, so why are you basing your arguement on it?'
Well thats an easy answer....because you also use it as 'proof' of the claim of a loving god.
' God only acted that way after hundreds of years of the Isrealites engaging in Baal worship that involved the blood sacrifices and canabalism of their children (and lots of other unmentionable perverted stuff). Don't ya think a just God should have put His foot down in that???'
Sorry, did i miss that whole description of that in the bible?
Not enough sophisticated believers on here. I am at the point where I actually miss Chad. He was no mental gaint to be sure, but he was a step up from Talking Snake believing Tropher and AE (with all due respect Tropher and AE). There has to be a blog out there somewhere where sophisticated Christians and atheists engage.
Once upon a time there was Beliefnet. It's still there, but things have changed.
I had many, many lengthy, intelligent conversations about all manner of beliefs, doctrine, current events with people of many faiths.
I miss it a great deal.
CNN, Topher doesn't make any sense, but he is a polite guy and has a right to be here.
Um. No.
Does anyone know of a better or at least better blog? I am sick of CNN.
For you, Fox news.
Why Fox?
Fox news is great for provokers and trolls and trouble makers. Unfortunately they got smart and won't let anyone comment on their boards.
If you don't like CNN, why are you on here?
Have I offended you in some way?
I've heard this one is good: http://www.topherslobotomy.com
There used to be fun people on here. CNN banned everyone.
Topher, did you see that?
See what? I see my "good morning" is up for review. Can't a person wish everyone a good day any more? You sure you want to be on the atheist side, dude?
Yes, our conversation disappeared.
Being an atheist is not a choice, it is common sense.
How do you define "common sense"?
Evidence.
Thanks.
I also see the name-stealers are about.
Is it just me, or is ths site messed up? The technology, not the conversation.
You're right...a WHOLE bunch of comments just disappeared. Didn't they? I was reading them, and then they were gone...
Yes, it is really buggy.
It's just CNN cleansing this page of excessive Topher-ism. It's a good thing.
I bet you're right. It is the topher person that is being scrubbed off.
A few minutes ago, the image at the top was not Oprah, but some blurred shot of a metal band. I believe there are hackers afoot.
scientist/believer
Oprah talks for a living, and is often wrong. For those atheists out there suggesting you have a "code of morality", please know that that's impossible. If life was spontaneously generated (abiogenesis), and Darwin was right, then all life can, and should, kill each other (the fittest survive) and mate with as many people as possible. Any human-generated laws would be subjective and temporary in nature. Humans killing each other would be no more right or wrong than being kind to each other. The only way to have TRUE morality, is when there are "absolute truths". It is IMPOSSIBLE to have absolute moral truth in atheism. But if there is a Creator that not only created the physical laws of the universe, but also spiritual laws, then moral truths are in play. I love atheists, because I once was one... and I love respectful talks. But I now see the falicy of my previous world-view.
October 18, 2013 at 9:56 am | Report abuse | Reply
Life feeds on life. That is a truism.
Few species prey on each other – such behaviour is contrary to survival.
Human beings are no different.
Morality is subjective and temporary in nature, even in the Bible.
Hence, Christians don't follow the rules in Leviticus.
Slavery, once though perfectly natural and moral, is no longer accepted in society. The ethics have changed based on societal opinion.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.
(1 Timothy 6:2 NLT)
If absolute morals come from God, why don't you have slaves?
Troll.
Someone calling themselves "Scientist/Believer" made a post to which I replied.
By the time I replied, the root posting was deleted from the board.
I reposted it.
Thank you for the troll accusation, though.
"If life was spontaneously generated (abiogenesis), and Darwin was right, then all life can, and should, kill each other (the fittest survive) and mate with as many people as possible. "
You just derived an ethical claim from a scientific theory. Either your putting us on or you need to repeat your freshman year of college.
My wife is a vegetarian and like atheist should gets the same nonsense. Do you eat Tofu Turkey? She does not eat turkey so why if it is made of tofu would she be happy with the shape of a turkey?
God isn't a man, so why would you be happy if he looked like a man (Jesus).
There are at least two tofu turkey products (tofurkey and unturkey) and many people eat them, so this is not an unreasonable question given that many will answer "yes". If a person likes a certain flavor, they won't stop liking the flavor itself because they stop eating the food category. Perhaps your wife never liked turkey or has a puritanical aversion to eating products that resemble meat, but that cannot be assumed by an outsider.
Jesus: Follow me or you'll burn in H*l l! Just remember that I love you! But seriously, I'll burn your A $ S!!!
Jesus' life mission was to keep people from going to hell. Hell is eternal seperation from God (love). Hell was not originally created for people... it was created for spirits that rebelled. People were created later, and were given the greatest gift of all... FREE WILL. Love is only possible within the arena of free will, because without it, people are simply robots. People choose to go to hell, God does not send them their. He takes no pleasure in seeing a human choose hell. He warns us of hell, he pleads with us not to choose it, he suffered to give us the best hope of avoiding hell... but each human makes the free will choice to go there or not. You have the choice to mock God, mock scripture, mock Jesus, mock the concept of hell and heaven- because he gave you the free will to do so. And you have gotten very good at it!
Stalin does not send anyone to the Gulag.
It is those who have hardened their hearts against him who send themselves to the Gulag through their bourgoise atti/tudes and counter-revolutionary actions.
This was not Stalin's plan at all.
He truly wants everyone to go to the Worker's Paradise and it grieves him that so many harden their hearts against him.
But he will not force anyone into the Worker's Paradise against their wishes.
He respects their free will.
If you don't want to go to the Gulag, just open your heart to the love of Stalin.
Sound familiar at all?
And YOU have gotten very good at doing exactly what they want you to do: be afraid, be very afraid.
You keep telling yourself that scientist....if it gets you through the cold, dark nights...
What if God died? That might explain all the chaos.
True, we would never really know if she was still alive or not. She hasn't been heard from in a REALLY long time, so that would explain that.
Exactly, there is no communication anymore. God may have simply moved on too.
Or fell off her skateboard and hit her head (Dogma)
There aren't 6 types of atheists on these boards – there are two.
The first type is kind, heartfelt and seems to genuinely care about humanity and their world.
The second type probably isn't atheist at all, but a bunch of provoking, sociopathic people that get on these boards to start fights.
My Mom is a sociopath. She could start one tiny little fight, amongst the 5 of us and walk away with a little grin. She loved seeing people fight, mostly because she knew she was behind it. Oh, and that fighting wasn't your typical name throwing. No. It involved toys like guns, knives and slander.
A recent study showed that at least 1 in 5 are sociopathic: that is, they lack empathy. They lack compassion. I see a lot of people on here like that and it makes me pretty darn sad to realize that we feed them, we talk to them, we get caught up in their hatred and nastiness, while they walk away, with a little grin on their face.
so 1 in 5 people are mother-in-laws.
interesting ....
This is the problem with the internet; it gives the trolls a place to troll without fear of reprisals. It lets the sociopaths feed off of each other while giving the rest of us a skewed view of what most people think. I think this is one reason behind all the political dysfunction right now.
Also I hope everyone survived (guns and knives sounds pretty bad). That would be a hard home to grow up in.
Thanks Thinker, I appreciate your kind words. We survived, but the five of us put the D in damaged.
Yeah, you're right when you point out that we do get a "skewed" view of people by reading the comments on here. I've noticed that when I'm out and about I expect people to be as nasty as they can be (on here) face to face. Luckily most of the really unhealthy people stay behind their computers. So far.
The DSM lists prevelance at between .2% and 3.3%. Your 1 in 5 figure would be a radical break from that. Do you have a citation? I've seen figures that high, or higher, among drug users and prison inmates, but you are looking at less than 1/20 in the general population. Interestingly, some recent studies find many with antisocial personality disorder capable of empathy, but capabale of turning it on or off at will.
I'm very sorry about your mother. That would be a horrible way to grow up.
Like u
Scientists from Yale and Harvard have changed the fundamental rules of biology by reprogramming the entire genome of a bacteria to be better resistant to viral infection.
http://news.yale.edu/2013/10/17/researchers-rewrite-entire-genome-and-add-healthy-twist
I have friends that can re-write the coding on complex computer programs that cause them to do new functions too... but the original computer program was written by intelligence. DNA is exactly analogous to computer programming. It could not have originally come from a spontaneous, random cause. All codes have an intelligent source. With DNA, your two choices are: God or ET. And if you follow the ET choice , you will find yourself in a dead-end loop.
I think you can't lump all atheists in the same boat. I have had conversations with atheists where I simply tell them to get out their science books and experience life and that there is more to it than just reading books and debunking religion or spirituality and they say I am trying to prove there is a God. If I even tell them there are things in the universe we do not understand and will never understand (this is actually scientifically proven) they think I am intruding on their atheism. Just like any religion there are different types of atheists, some simply don't believe in a "creator" or higher authority, but others use atheism as a shield of intellectuality, safely keeping them from feeling anything.
You can say this same thing about the religious. They use their god to justify their actions and go so far to kill in the name of their god. But not all are like that.
It depends on the context of the conversation, which was not provided, but it rather sounds like you were being confrontational. I don't know how you expected them to react. When I talk to people of faith in the real world, I try to keep it respectful in the hope that the conversation remains civil. Of course, all bets are off in the anonymity of the internet.
To be fair, there are atheists (as well as theists) that aren't secure enough in themselves to take someone else's opinions as anything other than an attack on themselves. I come from a fairly religious family, but I would have no problem telling my grandfather I am atheist if it ever came up (and he would be OK with that. He might try to convert me because he does believe quite strongly, but it wouldn't change our relationship). My uncle on the other hand would take it as a personal attack on his beliefs because he has no confidence in himself. I just make sure it never comes up with him.
Belief blog should do a poll on what people consider god to be. The convo is pointless if both sides are talking about different things.
They could, but you would get as many answers as there are people, because belief is a very personal thing and we all craft our gods in our own image...or in the image of what we fear most.
Sure , there would be similarities, which is how religions work. We don't all have to believe the same identical thing to carry on a rational conversation, however.
I think such polls would be better conducted by Pew or even Gallup, but a blog on the results would be interesting. I'm getting tired of the focus here on mainstream beliefs when most in this country don't stick to a neat definition even when they select a religious label.
Where'd all the comments go??
Some sheeple follow Oprah like a religion. If Oprah says it, it is gospel. She is a very wealthy woman who has done a great job of marketing herself. Before she opens her mouth, she needs to research her material. I'm surprised that she would have made that comment. By the way, I'm a believer but feel the Atheists need a fair shake. Tolerance and respect is my motto.
Oprah is the same as Jerry Springer.
I have never heard of a 500lb woman in a bikini taking a mud bath on Oprah. Then again I have never watched it so I don't know. I have had the misfortune of watching Springer a couple of times though.
Both of them are more interested in deriving ratings/audience from extreme view points than in reporting a balanced view. In many ways Jerry Springer presents a more honest view to the world than Oraph dpes.
Through the quantum fluctuations of chronometric tachyon fields, one can surmise that at its core, the Universe is composed of Heinsenberg pulse waves interacting on the quantum level.
Of course, these gravimetric oscillations can only be observed indirectly, but by noting their influence on the sub-atomic quantum flanging, the ferfanational matrices of gestalt knoncleotides proves, beyond a doubt, that the entire fabric of reality as we perceive it is nothing more than the passing whimsy of quantum midichlorians.
Quantum quantum quantum.
Quantum.
Buy my new book.
– Deepak Chopra
Huh?
Troll.
The above posting is what is known as "jocularity", or "a joke" in the vernacular.
By stringing together meaningless polysyllabic "scientific" termns, I am mocking Deepak Chopra's model of misrepresenting quantum mechanics as a vehicle for spiritual improvement.
Thank you for the troll accusation, though.
At least you able to amuse and entertain yourself with your mastery of the English language if no one else.